IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11178 OF 2025 Between: Gazula Venakata Ramana, S/o Surya Prakasa Rao, Aged about 65 years, R/o. Villa No. 4, SLV Laila Green Medows, Mustabad Road, Kesarapalli, NTR District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Vijayawada Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Guru Nank Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District. 2. State Bank of India, Mangalgiri Main Branch, Rep.by its Chief Manager Besides Urvasi Theatre, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents Bank in initiating proceedings under Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 and in contemplating to take physical possession of the Immovable Property of the petitioner i.e. 1.Residential House Flat No.1, 4‘^ Floor, Sakunthala Residency, D.No. 48-16-9E, Plot No. 167, R.S No. 363/1, Gunadala, Vijayawada Town, NTR District, 2. Residential House Flat No.4A, 4*^ Floor, Jayaram Towers, D.No. 7-35, Plot No. 198, 199, Layout No. 8/98, R.S Nos. 154/1, 167/A and B, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District, 3. Residential RCC Building situated in an extent of 164.11 Sq.yards in R.S No. 152/1 A, L.P No. 51/82, Plot No. 1, D.NO. 5-197, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District, through an Advocate Commissioner appointed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, in CRL.MP No. 750/2025 in CF No. 1269/2025, being embolden by the onerous conditions imposed by DRT, Visakhapatnam while passing interim orders dated. 16/04/2025 in I.A No. 1487/2025 in S.A No. 233/2025, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violation of the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 besides violation of Principles of Natural Justice and to consequently direct the respondents bank not to proceed with the above properties of the petitioner since the petitioner is neither borrower nor guarantor. lA No: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders in CRL.MP.No.750/2025 in CF.No.1269/2025 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada and notice dated:08/04/2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the Immovable Properties i.e., 1.Residential House Flat No.1, 4‘^ Floor, Sakunthala Residency, D.No. 48-16-9E, Plot No. 167, R.S No. 363/1, Gunadala, Vijayawada Town, NTR District, 2. Residential House Flat No.4A, 4*'' Floor, Jayaram Towers, D.No. 7-35, Plot No. 198, 199, Layout No. 8/98, R.S Nos. 154/1, 167/A and B, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District, 3. Residential RCC Building situated in an extent of 164.11 Sq.yards in R.S No. 152/1 A, L.P No. 51/82, Plot No. 1, D.NO. 5-197, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Patamata, Vijayawada, NTR District by suspending the condition imposed by DRT, Visakhapatnam in the interim orders dated; 16/04/2025 in IA.No.1487/2025 in S.A No.233/2025, during the pendency of this Writ Petiion. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI S.SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY The Court made the following: ORDER Bench Sr.No;-11 [3483] APHC010224962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI HE® WRIT PETITION NO; 11178 of 2025 ...Petitioner Gazula Venakata Ramana, Vs. ...Respondent(s) State Bank Of India and Others ********** Mr. K Jyothi Prasad Mr. S. Satyanarayana Moorthy Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate for Respondent: CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 29th April 2025 PC : The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the order, dated 16.04.2025, passed in S.A. No.233 of 2025 primarily on the ground that the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that it is a non-speaking order and gives no reasons as to why the assertions made in the Interlocutory Application, which were to be read in conjunction with the submissions made in the S.A., were not accepted by the D.R.T. before it ordered payment of Rs.1,10,00,000/- as a condition precedent for staying the further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner from the properties in question. 2 HCJ 6 RC, J W.P. No: 11178 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the condition imposed by the D.R.T. is onerous, which cannot be fulfilled by the petitioner as a condition precedent for the disposal of the S.A. It is stated that the order impugned, being a non-speaking one, violates the fundamentals of natural justice, which repeatedly has been held by the Courts that a non-speaking order by an Authority or a Court or a Tribunal does not enable the higher fora to understand the reasons why a particular order was passed and to know as to whether there was any application of mind by the said Authority or Court or Tribunal. 2. Reference in this regard can made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan therein it is held: Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.(k) If a judge or a quasi- '47. ^ (2010) 9 see 496 : (2010) 3 See (eiv) 852 2010 See Online Se 987 at page 510 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 11178 of 2025 judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (I) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process". 3. The order impugned, on the face of it, does not discuss the merits of the application and straightaway proceeds to order the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- in two installments. Needless to say that in case there was no merit in the case of the petitioner before the D.R.T., the Interlocutory Application could have been rejected by giving a reasoned order or else interim protection could have been granted till such time as the objections were called and the matter considered and decided on the Interim Application in the main S.A. In the present case, however, we see that the same is conspicuously absent. an Be that as it may, we cannot sustain the order impugned, which is, accordingly, set aside. We direct that I.A. No. 1487 of 2025 filed along with the S.A. shall be considered on its own merits after objections are filed, which the learned counsel for the respondents states, shall be filed within two weeks 4. 4 HCJ a RC, J W.P. No: 11178 of 2025 from today. The I.A. shall be disposed of by way of a speaking order. In the meantime, status quo with regard to the properties in possession of the petitioner as on date shall be maintained. The petitioner shall not delay the disposal of the I.A. in any manner, failing which, appropriate orders shall be passed in the I.A. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, 54, 31 - 32 - 54, Chitralaya Rd, near Leelamahal Road, Daba Gardens, Jagadamba Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530020. The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Vijayawada Branch, Guru Nank Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District. (BY RPAD) The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Mangalgiri Main Branch, Besides Urvasi Theatre, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. (BY RPAD) One CC to Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. gi HIGH COURT gi DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.11178 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS